Yea, that is also in Trade secret. But this article pre-dates the publication.
See I am starting to get the impression that Trade Secret was a combination of techniques from letters/articles that were published in newsletters/magazines.
*put on tin foil hat* Perhaps that's why it never got a review in any of the magazines it was sold in... *take off tin foil hat*
Crashing a program with DFSZ pokes.
Re: Crashing a program with DFSZ pokes.
This might be interesting: https://archive.org/search.php?query=23 ... &sort=date
The earliest mention I can find is in PCW in late January 1983, but it doesn't seem like it was being used for copy protection then. Strangely enough there's an almost identical article in Sinclair User around the same time. Also some of the magazines are out of order so there could be an even earlier mention.
The earliest mention I can find is in PCW in late January 1983, but it doesn't seem like it was being used for copy protection then. Strangely enough there's an almost identical article in Sinclair User around the same time. Also some of the magazines are out of order so there could be an even earlier mention.
Re: Crashing a program with DFSZ pokes.
Honestly I never thought of using archive.org in that way 
Yea you are right about wrong dates being entered into the meta data. For example INPUT gets listed as being published in the 90s..
Yea you are right about wrong dates being entered into the meta data. For example INPUT gets listed as being published in the 90s..
Re: Crashing a program with DFSZ pokes.
This is...djnzx48 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:04 am This might be interesting: https://archive.org/search.php?query=23 ... &sort=date
The earliest mention I can find is in PCW in late January 1983, but it doesn't seem like it was being used for copy protection then. Strangely enough there's an almost identical article in Sinclair User around the same time. Also some of the magazines are out of order so there could be an even earlier mention.
Spoiler
Re: Crashing a program with DFSZ pokes.
More interesting developments, the version of the manual that Trade Secret is referencing is the revision one. It was a little unclear what version was being used. This has now been resolved.
Big thanks to PeterJ for the assist.
You might be thinking 'well so what?' it clears up a question of attribution. Plus I can now be sure of what was being referenced. The plan on the new version is to have footnotes with the relevant information or for larger portions it will be featured as an appendix. This should reduce the amount of primary documents needed to use trade secret.
The next step is to find as many articles related to the techniques talked about in trade secret.
Luckily archive.org seems pretty good for this kind of data mining. Thank you to djnzx48 for the heads up on this.
Trying to create an attribution timeline to trace the spread of the technique would be interesting. Plus having this information available in a single document would be useful. It's a lot easier to look up an appendix than dig through multiple archives to find the relevant article.
Not being the sharpest pencil in the tin I appreciate screen shots to show whats going on, that is a major deficiency in trade secret some might say potato toxic . In the new edition there are extensive screenshots. (that's what I have been up to these past couple of days lol..)
Another thing that is badly needed is an index, this might take a little more time. But I think it would be worth it.
One thing that was removed was the blatant padding of having many pages of notes between each topic. It frustrated me because I felt it broke the flow of the document but what do you fellows think? Generally I would never write in books I owned. But perhaps I am weird..
Big thanks to PeterJ for the assist.
You might be thinking 'well so what?' it clears up a question of attribution. Plus I can now be sure of what was being referenced. The plan on the new version is to have footnotes with the relevant information or for larger portions it will be featured as an appendix. This should reduce the amount of primary documents needed to use trade secret.
The next step is to find as many articles related to the techniques talked about in trade secret.
Luckily archive.org seems pretty good for this kind of data mining. Thank you to djnzx48 for the heads up on this.
Trying to create an attribution timeline to trace the spread of the technique would be interesting. Plus having this information available in a single document would be useful. It's a lot easier to look up an appendix than dig through multiple archives to find the relevant article.
Not being the sharpest pencil in the tin I appreciate screen shots to show whats going on, that is a major deficiency in trade secret some might say potato toxic
. In the new edition there are extensive screenshots. (that's what I have been up to these past couple of days lol..)Another thing that is badly needed is an index, this might take a little more time. But I think it would be worth it.
One thing that was removed was the blatant padding of having many pages of notes between each topic. It frustrated me because I felt it broke the flow of the document but what do you fellows think? Generally I would never write in books I owned. But perhaps I am weird..